About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
CSPAN 7
MSNBC 7
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN2 3
LANGUAGE
English 30
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
." do you remember when the top democrat in the senate, harry reid, declared just a few weeks ago the democrats would not change the rules in the senate? remember that? wouldn't change the rules to stop senate republicans from abusing the process there. harry reid decided he would just instead make a handshake deal with the republicans' top senator, mitch mcconnell. he said he was satisfied with the republicans just agreeing to be more reasonable on issues like this. remember? they wouldn't change the filibuster rules. they would just agree as gentlemen that the republicans would curtail the excesses of filibustering everything and effectively ruling from the minority. democrats decided to not change the rules on the filibuster and just make that agreement with the republicans instead. they said, you know, at a minimum this will at least improve the confirmation process for the administration's nominees. how is that working out now? just a couple of weeks later. how's that gentleman's agreement going? now that we've just had a filibuster of a cabinet nominee for the first time in
. >> that is classic harry reid. he said that when why do something he doesn't like. if we agreed to everything he wanted to do he might be happy. nevertheless, this is a serious situation when you talk about a secretary of defense. this is the most important choice a president can make. i think he's made a choice even democrats scratching their head and they were embarrassed also about the performance, unacceptable performance of chuck hagel before the armed services committee . i think it deserves at least a little time to continue to look at what his position and going and leadership he can or can't provide. i don't know what the democratics will circle the wagon and support the president. but many of them have real concerns over whether it a good choice. >> we'll see if they go public with those. senator dan coats, for your time. >> thank you. >> pakistani officials called a deadly bombing a failure of security and intelligence agencies. security official it is did not act because they are scared of what the terrorist may do to them. 81 people were kim 61 others were injured. a mass funeral is
to get the congress to introduce legislation, you know harry reid will do whatever he wants in the senate and he ought to do that. but the reason he's saying this actually, it's certainly a stop to the left and thanking them for the vote in the election and doesn't realize an important thing, 62 million people voted against him and because they're concerned about this and he himself did very little. a lot of news reports that he thinks his greatest failing in his first term is a lack of action on climate change and he spoke little about it on the campaign trail because he knows the way americans feel about that. they're not for 2 billion more dollars to go to green energy projects, new committee called the energy security trust. we already have great green initiatives in the private sector and things are working. if you tell the public, give them the action between hugging a tree and hugging a wallet, the wallet always wins and be careful. >> and we're aware that the president got more votes than the people who voted against the president. this is a situation where the climate change issu
the gridlock. but of course, harry reid caved. that's another story in itself. so nothing has really changed. all you have to do is look at the chuck hagel situation in the senate to see just how bad everything is right now. but i want you to imagine liberals, just imagine what it would be like if we had 60 senators like this. >> i'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial. that just seems wrong to me. >> it sure does. newly elected senator from massachusetts elizabeth warren is doing what she promised to do. she is ready to lead the way on accountability for the financial industry, and for good reason. you see, the federal reserve says the 2008 financial collapse cost this country 38.8% of its net worth. despite the massive fraud and recklessness of the banks, the number of executives prosecuted for this crisis zero. before today, there is no accountability. now, the frank/dodd financial regulation bill was watered down and not fully implemented. senator warren used her first banking committee hearing to take on the regulators who were supposed to be enforcing the
with him that there is a do nothing congress, but it is the senate, harry reid who is the do nothing. they have passed legislation for the last two years in the house of representatives, since the republicans had control. what happens? nothing. the senate sits on it and does nothing. second i want to -- want to talk about fiber. there is technology available today where each individual home could be self-sufficient -- self-sufficient with its own energy sell. what is amazing is if we have 500 years of natural gas, there it is. nobody can attack us if every household has energy. we eliminate the grid because everyone has the wrong grade. there is a company in california that is powering e day using methane gas. that company is blue energy of california. host: the president signed an executive order last week regarding cyber security. some news about that, they intended to improve information sharing to establish a framework of cyber security best practices. "the white house spent the last several months crafting the order after congress failed to pass cyber security legislation last y
, and the reason why it was 58 votes is because harry reid switched his vote to no soap the senate can bring it back up again. you have a lot of republican senators who were saying last week that they did not want to see it go up in filibuster. at least it would be an up-down of the to be approved. there was no precedent to filibuster a choice like this. and the republicans decided they wanted to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the terrorist attack in benghazi in september, and so they are committed to passing a goal when they come back. the way you are looking at it, it is a tedious exercise in delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed. he will just have to wait 11 days. you should confirm him because you are going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. host: harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do
leader harry reid. so we have a very good relationship. and i think that's one that we're going to maintain through this thing. and i would say that senator reid on numerous occasions was concerned about republican nominations. during the bush era we had steven johnson. steven johnson, who incidentally, was a democrat for the e.p.a. administrator. i thought he'd be good. i think that there are several democrats that thought he would not be good, and so harry reid did what he's supposed to do. he interceded in behalf of the democrats who opposed him. well, they had a 60-vote margin. that's fine. they got 61 votes. dirk kempthorne was one that there was objection to. he was up for -- most of you remember him, a former senator from utah. he was up for the secretary of interior, and there are some people objecting to him. and of course that was back during the bush administration. he was nominated and he went ahead and he was confirmed. it was a 60-vote margin. there's nothing unusual about this. getting back to steven johnson, this is even more analogous to what we have what now, b
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
have barack obama who is a democrat, president of the united states. then we have harry reid who is the majority leader. so the democrats are in control of both. now, if you think back at what happened back in -- during the last bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. george bush was president of the united states and the democrats were a minority. same situation. so what happened? first of all, we had bolton come up, john bolton. same thing, subjected to a 60-vote margin. we had steve -- dirk kempthorne. all remember dirk kempthorne. there are a lot of people who did not approve of him. he was appointed by bush, a republican, and then when he came over here, the democrats didn't like him, they subjected him to a 60-vote margin. that wasn't a filibuster. this isn't a filibuster today. people are trying to say that and blame me as being the bad guy that's causing a filibuster. it's not the case at all. any more than it was the case back in the 2005-2006 and other times when we had a nominee that was put forth by president bush. it was objected to by the democrats. now, di
. the reason why it was defeated because the majority leader harry reid switched his vote to no so he could bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recease. a lot of republican senators were saying that they did not want this choice filibustered. even if they wanted to vote no on his nomination he at least deserves an up down vote in order to be approved. the republicans decided to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the attack in benghazi so they passed hagel when they come back. the way you're looking at it, to me, it is efforts to delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed as the secretary of defense. he just has to wait a couple of days. you're going to confirm himny way and it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to to do. host: harry reid set a new vote in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: well, they say they would like answers, again, from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do in the terrorist attack in libya. the white
united, and they're going home. i am sure we can get harry reid, he will come back as the speaker will join with us in supporting the plan that the house and senate democrats and the president supports to avoid the sequester and avoid 750,000 americans losing their jobs. we will do it. they put a plan on their table, we put a plan on the table, the house has put zero plans on the table. >> they always talk about what they did in the last congress. those bills are gone. they keep pointing to them as if somehow magically they are going to be resurrected. if they want to resurrect them, put them on the floor and let's vote. >> it is often talked about, sequestration, and we have heard so much about the sequester. will you lay out areas that are most important to democrats that the sequester will impact? >> i will defer to our budget chair because he has worked with all of our caucus on this, but i know other members will be talking about it, and that is where the rubber meets the road in the appropriations committee. that we say, since you mentioned education, when they talk about cu
's the interesting thing. if you look today we have barack obama, democrat president of the united states. and harry reid the majority leader. and the democrats are in control of both. if you think back at what happened back in during the last bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. george bush was president of the united states, and the democrats were the minority. same situation. so what happened? first of all, we had both come up. john bolton same thing. subjected to a 60-vote margin. we had steve -- we remember dirk, there a lot of people that it not approve of him. he was appointed by bush, a republican, and then when he came over here the democrats didn't like him. they subjected him to a 60-vote margin. that wasn't a filibuster. it's not a filibuster today. people are trying to blame me the bad guy causing a filibuster. it's not the case at all. it anymore the case than the 2005, 2006, and other times when we had a nominee put forth by president wush who was objected to by the democrat. dirk when he was nominated to be the secretary of entire job, there was a lot of opposition to the
haven't seen a solution from the president or harry reid. the republicans have put our plan on the table and passed it through the house of representatives. now it is incumbent upon the president to show leadership. >> let's turn to hagel. the nomination of course something taken up once the break is over. this is bob woodward on fox news talking about democratic senators calling the white house asking if hagel was going to withdraw. this is what he said was the white house response. >> the answer is an emphatic no. remember john urlicman used to talk about twisting slowly in the wind. >> why wouldn't the white house jump to hagel's defense? >> i think they have. had john mccain out this weekend. the expectation is that senator hagel is going to -- that vote is going to happen and he will be our next secretary of defense. what i think is deplorable and john mccain was very honest this weekend and part of what prompted some of democrat's questions. republicans made it clear this is a grudge match. lindsey graham is saying he is not going to vote on this or won't move on this until he find
and will cause .eat harm the president takes it. speaker boehner he said. majority leader harry reid hates it. they created it. imagine how the rest of us feel about it. somehow our leaders cannot seem to figure a way out of its. we all agree the country needs to find a more sustainable fiscal path. in my view, we need a balanced thatach, as wels said, includes both spending and revenues. cuts in spending should focus on programs of a growing the most, not on discretionary spending, which is not growing, is not the problem, and yet has already borne the brunt of cuts. the discretionary spending is a part of the budget where america's future lies. include such investment as research and education. cutting investment in our future is not the way to solve this problem. yet that is exactly what the sequester will do. there is a better way. we have talked about the impact of the sequester on an economy that is still recovering. i want to focus on the longer term, the economy and the nation that we will leave to our children, our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. the research being cut but th
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)